Sanctuary City for Unborn Campaign Launched With Huge Fundraising Haul

 

SAN ANGELO, TX — Tuesday at noon (August 16), Project Destiny San Angelo officially launched with a donor luncheon at the San Angelo Country Club. The crowd at the event overflowed. Pastor Mack Roller, head of Glen Meadows Baptist Church, coordinated the venue and said he expected 80 to attend based upon RSVPs received from the personal invitations. Country club staff worked tirelessly to add more tables as the crowd swelled to over 130.

Project Destiny San Angelo is a Political Action Committee organized two months ago to run a political campaign to convince San Angelo voters to approve adding a City ordinance that will ban abortions inside the city limits. Pastor Ryan Buck of Immanuel Baptist Church originally organized the effort in 2021. Since then, his committee has grown to include pastors from other San Angelo churches and known political leaders such as State Senator Charles Perry.

At Tuesday’s luncheon, the audience learned from a panel of experts about the nationwide movement to make make municipalities sanctuary cities for the unborn. In west Texas, Lubbock is so far the largest municipality to adopt the ordinance. Lubbock joined 41 other smaller Texas cities who also have the ordinance in place. In our region, those cities include Sterling City, Colorado City, Westbrook, Big Spring, Ackerly, Goldsmith, Anson, Impact, Cisco, Eastland, Gorman, and Carbon.

The latest push by pro-life organizers is to gain acceptance of the ordinance in larger cities like San Angelo and Abilene. Both cities have the ordinance on the ballot for the November 8 election.

Senator Perry told the crowd that San Angelo and Abilene are part of what conservative and Republican political leaders in Austin call “The Magnificent Seven.” The Seven refers to Amarillo, Lubbock, San Angelo, Wichita Falls, Abilene, San Angelo, Midland, and Odessa.

“Without these voters, Texas would have already turned blue,” Perry told the audience.

Large majority Republican voters in “The Magnificent Seven” cities act as a counterweight to suburban circles around deep blue urban centers in Texas that are rapidly turning into Democrat vote centers. About 20 years ago those same suburban areas voted solidly Republican. For example, Williamson County located north of Austin has shifted blue as it has become a bedroom community for workers in Austin in deep blue Travis County. Even Houston’s Energy Corridor on west I-10 towards Katy, once a Republican stronghold in Harris County, has turned purple.

The panel discussed the need for the ordinance that bans abortion in the post-Roe world. With Roe v. Wade overturned, some in the audience wondered why San Angelo needs to implement the ordinance.

Panelist Mike Stevens, the Lubbock political consultant from Lubbock who Project Destiny San Angelo hired to manage the campaign, was a panelist along with Ryan Buck and Senator Perry. Ron Herrin of Lubbock, whose wife is among a group called “The Five Grandmothers” who founded the sanctuary city movement in Lubbock, also joined the panel to describe how Lubbock’s citizens have reacted to the new law now in effect.

Stevens said there are a few cities in Texas that are working to diminish the enforcement of the statewide abortion ban called the “Heartbeat Act” that mandates a physician test for a “fetal heartbeat” (or “cardiac activity”) before performing an abortion and prohibits abortion if a “fetal heartbeat” is detected unless the life of the mother is in danger. Those cities include Denton, El Paso and, of course, Austin. “This San Angelo ordinance is a pushback against that,” Stevens said. He added that by putting it on the books today will make it harder for future city councils to overturn as it will require another ballot initiative. The ordinance also sends a message to Austin that this part of Texas and San Angelo specifically is in agreement with the current legislation. There is also a question as to what will happen to the statewide Heartbeat Act should someday the Texas Legislature shift into Democratic Party control.

“Without this ordinance we are left up to the state to decide what to do. This builds a fence around San Angelo,” Stevens said.

Perry said supporting the campaign and passing the ordinance is most importantly the right thing to do. He made an impassioned speech following the panel discussion about his Christian faith and how his faith brought him to fight abortion that he views as an abomination against God.

The citywide campaign to pass the ordinance is estimated to cost as much as $105,000. Following the end of the luncheon, Buck told the event raised $35,000. The initiative will be on the November 8 ballot for all voters registerer to vote inside the city limits. Early voting is October 24-November 4.

Another fundraising event is being planned for late September or early October. For more details about Project Destiny San Angelo, see the website that is also linked to the PAC’s social media profiles.

Subscribe to the LIVE! Daily

The LIVE! Daily is the "newspaper to your email" for San Angelo. Each content-packed edition has weather, the popular Top of the Email opinion and rumor mill column, news around the state of Texas, news around west Texas, the latest news stories from San Angelo LIVE!, events, and the most recent obituaries. The bottom of the email contains the most recent rants and comments. The LIVE! daily is emailed 5 days per week. On Sundays, subscribers receive the West Texas Real Estate LIVE! email.

Required

Most Recent Videos

Comments

We should definitely let religious beliefs influence legislation.  There are so many theocracies out there that are far superior to our current form of government that practices a separation of church and state.  An example of a current theocracy thats better than the U.S. is .... uh... wait for it... hold on... um... technical difficulties.

IRAN! yes Iran.  No wait... Yemen!  No that's not better.  MAURITAINIA!! That's the one right there.  Mauritania.

Don Jones, Thu, 08/18/2022 - 16:11

These people would go apey if Muslims were trying to influence the law, yet when its their religion it just fine.

What about the people that do not adhere to any religion but still propose that abortion is wrong?
 

Are the reasons they give an issue for you as well?

Don Jones, Fri, 08/19/2022 - 04:49

The whole "abortion is murder" (or any other abortion point for that matter) is a red herring/ talking point and always will be, it all boils down to one simple question;

Does ANYONE have control over someone else's body? Yes or No.

The answer is NO.

Really very simple.

BUT, to answer your original question, well, I was talking about legislation in general, not JUST abortion.

You’re right it really is simple. Not just “someone else’s body”. Another human life involved, separate and unique ;)

Yep. When the sperm and the egg meet, a zygote is formed. This zygote has its own unique DNA. This unique DNA is half father’s and half mother’s. This zygote fulfills the scientific criteria for life. 

People can continue to deny science and say what is aborted is not a life. That’s fine, it can be turned into a property battle. What is created would have to be considered property if it’s not considered a person. On those terms, the father owns half and should at least have a say on his property or be compensated monetarily for damages caused by unwanted abortions. 

 

The issue lies not with the question of "life", but rather "human life".  Bacteria are life.  Amoeba are life.  Fish are life.  Grass is life.  Dogs are life.  All of these are not human life, and it can be argued that the immediate product of sperm meeting egg might be considered life but is not yet human life.  It simply contains the building blocks that might result in human life.  This issue is far more complex than the "Life begins at conception" folks proclaim it to be.

In seeking a decision regarding the point at which one might decide "Abortion acceptable" and  "Abortion not acceptable" one can reasonably argue that the point at which abortion can be considered a reasonable solution in the face of intervening considerations is that at which the developing fetus is not viable outside the mother.

I am not pro-abortion, but rather am pro-choice.  The draconian restrictions being placed on women with wholly justifiable reasons for wanting an abortion are based on simplistic arguments.  Further, as I have suggested before, I firmly believe that many staunchly anti-abortion folks would rethink their stance when it is THEIR daughter, or THEIR son's girlfriend, or even THEIR wife should medical considerations regarding a fetus or the wife come into play.

I do not support abortion as a means of careless women's (and their partner's) using it as a means of birth control.  There are far better ways of achieving this.  I do not condone irresponsibility.  Having said that, when it comes down to a woman's being forced to make a choice because of circumstances, whatever they may be, it is NOT my choice to make.  Nor is it the State's.

“and it can be argued that the immediate product of sperm meeting egg might be considered life but is not yet human life.”

 

This is in contradiction to science. Your proposition of the life created not being a human life must be based on a moral or political philosophy. We can deal with facts (science) or we can deal with feelings. What is your definition of human life?

 

“the point at which abortion can be considered a reasonable solution”…”is that at which the developing fetus is not viable outside the mother.”

 

Viability is said to be 22-23 weeks from conception. That’s with current technology. What was the viability range in the 1930s? What if our our technologies

advance and we can bring the number down to 19 weeks, will laws have to change? Do you think science could progress to the point we wouldn’t even need a human mother for gestation? If that happens, then the zygote would be viable outside the mother. 

 

“I firmly believe that many staunchly anti-abortion folks would rethink their stance”

 

I don’t. Those with true convictions don’t rethink things like that. There is a trust and an ability to give up control when there is a belief in God. Romans 8:28 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

 

All things would include things such as, unplanned and untimely pregnancies, death, disease, wars, food shortages, inflation etc. Truly convicted people take verses like this to heart and it allows for a “peace that passes understanding”. They will need this ability even more so when they are made enemies of the state, enemies of progress because of simplistic  “archaic beliefs”.

Don Jones, Sun, 08/21/2022 - 17:17

Does ANYONE have control over someone else's body? Yes or No.

That’s a silly question. Does the government have any legal control over you? Like speed limits? Drinking and driving? When you can water your lawn?

Don Jones, Mon, 08/22/2022 - 02:15

You are being purposefully obtuse.

Does anyone have control over someone else body medically? Can I force you to cut out a kidney and give it to me? Yes or No? Answer the question and stop trying to avoid it.

Don Jones, Sun, 08/21/2022 - 17:20

" Another human life involved, separate and unique"

Ok, then does that "life" have a right to someone else's body? Do I have the right to force you to remove a kidney to give to me?

Does anyone have any right to anyone else's body? YES or NO?

What are talking about? Just stop what you’re saying doesn’t even make any sense!

Not about “religious beliefs”, about the Right to Life our first and foremost right according to the U.S. Constitution ;)

Not sure if you’re aware, but the Supreme Court just ruled that no such “right to abortion” exists, that the issue should be “left up to the States or to the People ;)

Don Jones, Fri, 08/19/2022 - 22:30

You mean the packed republican court in which the republicans stole 2 seats from? The supreme court where McConnell changed the rules for one stolen confirmation, yet broke that exact same rule for another stolen confirmation? 

The supreme court as it sits is illegitimate, thinking people know this as a fact.

BUT, lemme aske you this, if the democrats had made up a rule that never existed before to block a republican nomination, then broke that very same rule to appoint another judge, how would you feel about it? Be honest and give a real answer, don't just change the subject like you are well known to do. 

Turnabout is fair play democrats were first to invoke the so-called “nuclear option” for presidential appointees ;)

Don Jones, Sun, 08/21/2022 - 04:10

You answered EXACTLY like they taught you to. Good job.

You mean with the truth? Someone once told me that the Patriot Act would someday be used against US citizens turns out they were right!

A prime example would be democrats wanting to increase the number of SC justices…a monumentally STUPID thing to do since the “other side” would obviously do the same thing ;)

Don Jones, Sun, 08/21/2022 - 17:13

Nope, base it on the number of districts, which has been the rule in the past. Several times in US history has the amount supreme court justices changed. Simple.

The patriot act was republicans doing by the way.

Oh please! Everyone knows why democrats want to add SC justices, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the “number of districts”.

Also I’m fully aware that the patriot act was signed into law by a Republican president…I was using it as an example of how such things can come back and bite you ;)

Don Jones, Mon, 08/22/2022 - 02:17

Most things republicans do come back to bite us, I agree with you on that point, surprised you made the connection though.

Haha right! My point remains…democrats were first to invoke the so-called “nuclear option” for presidential appointees.

Democrats outsmarted again imagine that ;)

The magnificent seven are getting stronger and stronger while we watch what the libturd snowflakes are trying to do to our state and country.

Vote red or be a dead head.

Post a comment to this article here:

X Close